SpaceX
SpaceX’s Crew Dragon launch moves to March, risking Falcon Heavy delays
The planning date for the launch debut of SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft has been pushed to no earlier than (NET) March 2019 per sources familiar with the matter, potentially creating a direct schedule conflict with the company’s planned operational debut of Falcon Heavy, also NET March 2019.
At the same time as delays to the Commercial Crew Program continue to increase the odds that NASA will lose assured access to the International Space Station (ISS) in 2020, both of SpaceX’s critical missions are entirely dependent upon the support of its Kennedy Space Center-located Launch Complex 39A (Pad 39A), creating a logistical puzzle that will likely delay Falcon Heavy’s second launch until Crew Dragon is safely in orbit.
The latest updates that #SpaceX has made to LC-39A. They have made a lot of progress with the cladding in the last month. #Falcon9 #Space #Spaceflight #SpaceCoast #Florida #KSC @NASASpaceflight pic.twitter.com/sq76IKDc3K
— Tom (@Cygnusx112) February 2, 2019
As of the first week of December 2018, SpaceX was reportedly planning towards a mid-January 2019 launch debut for Crew Dragon. By the end of December, DM-1 was no earlier than the end of January. By the end of January, DM-1 had slipped to from late-February to NET March 2019. Put in slightly different terms, SpaceX’s Crew Dragon launch debut has been more or less indefinitely postponed for the last two months, with planning dates being pushed back at roughly the same pace as the passage of time (i.e. a day’s delay every day).
Admittedly, DM’s apparently indefinite postponement may well be – and probably is – more of an artifact than a sign of any monolithic cause. While the US government’s longest-ever shutdown (35 days) undoubtedly delayed a major proportion of mission-critical work having to do with extensive NASA reviews of SpaceX and Crew Dragon’s launch readiness (known as Readiness Reviews), much of the 60+ day DM-1 delay can probably be attributed to the complexity of the tasks at hand. Being as it is the first time SpaceX has ever attempted a launch directly related to human spaceflight, as well as the first time NASA has been back at the helm (more or less) of US astronaut launch endeavors in more than 7.5 years, significant delays should come as no surprise regardless of how disappointing they may be.
- Crew Dragon and its crew-rated Falcon 9 went vertical at a launch pad (Pad 39A) for the first time ever on January 4th. (SpaceX)
- The whole shebang. (SpaceX)
- The integrated DM-1 Crew Dragon ‘stack’ rolled out to Pad 39A for the first time in the first few days of 2019. (SpaceX)
- A render of Crew Dragon launching atop Falcon 9. (SpaceX)
The most consequential aspect of DM-1’s two-month (at least) delay will likely be the myriad ways it feeds into delays of SpaceX’s in-flight abort (IFA) test and first crewed launch (DM-2), and thus’s NASA’s ability to once again independently launch US astronauts. Given that SpaceX’s DM-2 is expected to occur around six months after DM-1 and that the final certification of Crew Dragon for official astronaut launches will likely take another 2-3 months, these delays – barring heroics or program modifications – are pushing NASA dangerously close to the edge of losing assured US access to the International Space Station (ISS).
According to a July 2018 report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) analyzed the Commercial Crew Program and NASA’s human spaceflight program more generally and concluded that NASA would lose assured access to the ISS in November 2019 if Boeing and SpaceX continued to suffer delays and were unable to reach certification status by then. This comes as a result of NASA’s reliance on Russian Soyuz launches for access both to and from the ISS, launch and return service contracts which have no replacements (aside from SpaceX and Boeing). While GAO noted that NASA could likely delay that loss of assured access until January 2020, even that might be pushing it if SpaceX’s DM-1 delay continues much further.
“[While NASA is working on potential solutions, it] has not yet developed a contingency plan to address the potential gaps that [future delays in Boeing and SpaceX schedules] could have on U.S. access to the ISS after 2019.” – GAO, July 2018
Prior to DM-1’s delay from NET January to NET March 2019, SpaceX was targeting an In-Flight Abort test roughly three months after DM-1 (it will reuse DM-1’s Crew Dragon capsule), DM-2 six months after DM-1 (NET June 2019), and NASA certification and the first operational astronaut launch (PCM-1) as few as two months after DM-2 (August 2019). It’s reasonable to assume that delays to DM-1 will impact subsequent Crew Dragon launches roughly 1:1, as DM-2 and its many associated reviews hinge directly on DM-1, while the same relationship also exists between PCM-1 and DM-2. As a result, Crew Dragon’s two-month delay probably means that SpaceX’s NASA certification will occur no earlier than October 2019, giving NASA no more than 90 days of buffer before the US presence on the ISS drops from around 50% (3 astronauts) to 0%.
An excellent view of #SpaceX Launch Complex 39A – better known as Pad 39A – from a February 4th Air National Guard (180th Fighter Wing) flyover. Of note, SpaceX has painted the FSS (tower) black and white and is in the process of installing transparent cladding. pic.twitter.com/DTiGWJk1D7
— Eric Ralph (@13ericralph31) February 5, 2019
Crew Dragon and Falcon Heavy walk into a bar…
The unexpected delays to Crew Dragon’s DM-1 launch debut are likely placing SpaceX in an awkward situation with respect to the operational launch debut of Falcon Heavy, meant to place the terminally delayed Arabsat 6A satellite into orbit no earlier than March 7th, 2019 (at the absolute earliest). DM-1 is also targeting a launch sometime in March, posing a significant problem: both Falcon Heavy and Crew Dragon can only launch from Pad 39A, while the on-site hangar simply doesn’t have the space to support schedule-critical Falcon Heavy prelaunch work (mainly booster integration and a static fire test) and no less critical Crew Dragon launch preparations simultaneously.
- SpaceX’s 39A hangar is massive but it would be a stretch to support Crew Dragon and Falcon Heavy simultaneously. (SpaceX)
- An impressive view of Crew Dragon (DM-1), Falcon 9 B1051, and its upper stage. (SpaceX)
Much like SpaceX’s inaugural Falcon Heavy rocket spent a month and a half fully integrated and more than two weeks in a static-fire limbo (albeit due to one-of-a-kind circumstances) before its launch debut, SpaceX’s second Falcon Heavy rocket – comprised of three new Block 5 boosters and Heavy-specific hardware upgrades – is likely to take a good deal more time than a normal Falcon 9 for prelaunch processing. Almost all of that Heavy-specific testing depends on the rocket being integrated (i.e. all three boosters attached) for preflight fit and systems checks and a wet dress rehearsal (WDR) and/or static fire ignition test.
It’s entirely possible that SpaceX integration technicians are able to complete the process of swapping out Crew Dragon and Falcon 9, modifying the transport/erector (T/E), completing Falcon Heavy booster integration, and installing Falcon Heavy on the T/E quickly enough to allow for simultaneous DM-1 and Arabsat 6A processing. It’s also possible that an extremely elegant but risky alternative strategy could solve the logistical puzzle – as an example, SpaceX could roll Crew Dragon and Falcon 9 out to Pad 39A a week or more before launch to give Falcon Heavy enough space for full integration, whereby Falcon 9’s necessarily successful launch would clear the T/E and allow it to be rolled back into 39A’s hangar for Falcon Heavy installation.
Falcon Heavy at the Cape pic.twitter.com/hizfDVsU7X
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 20, 2017
The most likely (and least risky) end result, however, is an indefinite delay for Falcon Heavy Flight 2, pending the successful launch of Crew Dragon. This is very much an instance where “wait and see” is the only route to solid answers, so wait and see we shall.
Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes!
Investor's Corner
SpaceX makes $20 billion move to optimize its balance sheet
SpaceX announced today that it commenced its first-ever public bond offering, marking a significant step in the newly public company’s capital markets strategy.
The company announced an offering of senior unsecured notes expected to raise at least $20 billion.
The move comes just a short time after SpaceX completed one of the largest initial public offerings in history. In mid-June, the company priced shares at $135 and raised more than $85 billion, propelling founder Elon Musk’s net worth past the trillion-dollar mark and giving the firm substantial liquidity.
🚨 SpaceX has announced its inaugural offering of senior unsecured notes.
The net proceeds will be used to repay outstanding loans under its bridge loan facility in full.
This inaugural debt offering represents a financing milestone for SpaceX, which previously depended… pic.twitter.com/pcOZuVbTRv
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 22, 2026
According to the company’s SEC filing, the net proceeds from the notes will be used primarily to repay in full the outstanding borrowings under its existing bridge loan facility, cover related fees and expenses, and fund general corporate purposes. The offering is being conducted under Rule 144A, as well as Regulation S, targeting qualified institutional buyers and non-U.S. investors. Notes will be unsecured obligations ranking equally with other unsubordinated debt.
The $20 billion bridge loan was used to refinance approximately $17.5 billion in higher-cost “junk” debt tied to X and xAI. SpaceX had merged with xAI in February 2026 in an all-stock deal. The bridge facility, which matures in September 2027, had represented the bulk of SpaceX’s long-term debt.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
In connection with the bond launch, SpaceX disclosed it held approximately $100.8 billion in cash and cash equivalents as of June 19. Investor calls began on the announcement date, with pricing and launch expected shortly thereafter. Rating agencies have assigned investment-grade ratings to the proposed bonds, reflecting confidence in SpaceX’s dominant position in commercial launches and the growth trajectory of its Starlink internet offering.
The debt raise also allows SpaceX to optimize its balance sheet by replacing short-term, higher-cost bridge financing with longer-date, lower-cost fixed-income securities. This provides greater financial flexibility to support capital-intensive initiatives, including the development of Starship, the expansion of the Starlink constellation, and the integration of AI capabilities following the xAI combination.
SpaceX shares (NASDAQ: SPCX) fell sharply on the news, dropping over 16 percent overall on the market on Monday. The stock had surged initially after debuting but pulled back amid profit-taking and broader market dynamics.
Overall, the bond offering underscores SpaceX’s transition to a mature public company with access to diverse funding sources. It positions the firm to pursue its long-term vision of multiplanetary expansion and AI infrastructure, while maintaining a disciplined approach to its capital structure in a high-growth but capital-heavy industry.
Elon Musk
SpaceX confirms third massive compute deal at Colossus data center
SpaceX confirmed today that it has officially signed its third massive compute deal, providing compute at its Colossus data center in Southaven, Mississippi.
Reflection AI will gain immediate access to NVIDIA GB300 chips at SpaceX’s Colossus 2 data center. In return, Reflection will pay SpaceX $150 million per month starting on July 1, with total payments reaching approximately $6.3 billion if the contract runs through its duration, which is until 2029. Either party can terminate the agreement with 90 days’ notice after the initial three-month period.
CNBC first reported the deal.
🚨 SpaceXAI has agreed to a new compute deal with Reflection AI.
Reflection gets access to NIVIDIA GB300s, and will pay $150M per month to SpaceXAI for the compute. pic.twitter.com/bNPare8U5u
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 22, 2026
This latest partnership highlights SpaceX’s strategy of commercializing its massive Colossus supercomputing infrastructure, originally developed to power Elon Musk’s Grok AI models. The company has rapidly expanded its customer base in the AI sector following its February 2026 merger with xAI, a transaction that valued the combined entity at $1.25 trillion.
SpaceX has previously signed significant compute deals with other major players.
It granted Anthropic exclusive access to the full capacity of its Colossus 1 data center, which exceeds 300 megawatts and includes over 220,000 NVIDIA GPUs. Details from SpaceX’s IPO filings indicate Anthropic will pay $1.25 billion per month through May 2029, potentially generating around $45 billion over the term of the deal.
Additionally, Google agreed to pay SpaceX $920 million per month for compute capacity from October 2026 through June 2029. This 32-month period will provide Google access to roughly 110,000 NVIDIA GPUs, along with supporting processors and memory. Capacity ramps up through September at a reduced fee, with termination options after the first year.
SpaceXA also established arrangements for computing power with Cursor, an AI coding startup. SpaceX acquired them in a $60 billion all-stock deal.
These arrangements position SpaceX’s collective position as an AI infrastructure powerhouse with high-margin revenue potential. The Google deal alone could generate nearly $29.5 billion over its term, while the Reflection contract adds another $6.3 billion.
Combined with the Anthropic arrangement, SpaceX stands to realize tens of billions in revenue from compute leasing in the coming years, which diversifies beyond SpaceX’s traditional rocket launches and Starlink operation.
The deals underscore growing demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity amid chip shortages and surging model development needs. Reflection, valued at $25 billion and focused on “American open intelligence” with government and national security ties, cited recent restrictions on closed models as validation for open-source approaches.
For SpaceX, the partnerships transform capital-intensive data centers into flexible revenue sources while supporting its broader AI ambitions after the company has gone public.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk responds to SpaceX’s ESG rating and says its rockets won’t go electric
It is safe to say SpaceX won’t be going for electric rockets anytime soon.
In a characteristically blunt reply on X, SpaceX frontman Elon Musk stated, “Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible,” following reports that MSCI had assigned SpaceX its lowest possible ESG rating of CCC.
The assessment, issued just this past week, coinciding closely with SpaceX’s public market debut, placed the company on par with nations like Russia in sustainability scoring and cited significant risks in environmental, social, and governance areas.
MSCI flagged SpaceX’s exposure to rocket emissions and other operational impacts, alongside governance concerns such as concentrated control by Musk and limited shareholder protections. Musk’s terse comment directly addressed the environmental pillar, underscoring a core physical constraint that ESG frameworks often overlook when evaluating high-thrust industries.
Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 21, 2026
Electric propulsion systems do exist and are widely used in space. Ion thrusters and Hall-effect thrusters accelerate ionized propellant, typically xenon or krypton, using electric fields, achieving very high specific impulse, often exceeding 3,000 seconds compared to roughly 300–450 seconds for chemical rockets.
This efficiency makes them ideal for satellite station-keeping, orbit raising, and deep-space missions where low thrust over long durations is sufficient. SpaceX’s own Starlink satellites employ electric propulsion for these purposes.
However, launching from Earth’s surface demands something entirely different: enormous thrust delivered rapidly to overcome gravity and atmospheric drag. A typical orbital-class booster must generate thrust far exceeding its weight, often in the millions of Newtons within seconds.
Chemical rockets achieve this through exothermic combustion of dense propellants, producing high-mass-flow, high-velocity exhaust. Electric systems, by contrast, expel very small amounts of mass at extremely high speeds. Generating equivalent thrust would require impractical onboard power levels, massive energy storage or generation systems, and prohibitive added mass, rendering the approach infeasible with current or near-term technology.
Musk has previously expressed a similar sentiment, noting a desire for electric orbital rockets while acknowledging the inescapable requirements of Newton’s third law and energy delivery. The distinction is clear: electric propulsion excels once a vehicle is already in space; it cannot replace the high-thrust chemical phase required to reach orbit from the ground.
The episode illustrates broader critiques of ESG ratings. Proponents argue they incentivize better risk management and long-term sustainability. Detractors, including Musk—who has previously called ESG a “scam”—contend that such metrics can penalize essential activities when no practical alternative exists, potentially discouraging innovation in sectors like space access.
Elon Musk dubs the S&P 500 ESG as “outrageous scam” after Tesla gets booted from index
SpaceX has sought to mitigate launch-related impacts through reusability: Falcon 9 boosters have flown more than 30 times in some cases, dramatically lowering the manufacturing and emissions burden per kilogram delivered to orbit. Starship’s design further emphasizes rapid reusability and methane propellant, which can theoretically be produced via sustainable pathways.
Ultimately, Musk’s remark serves as a reminder that certain engineering realities persist regardless of scoring systems. As humanity expands its presence in space for communications, science, and exploration, balancing genuine environmental progress with technological necessity remains a central challenge.
ESG frameworks may evolve, but the fundamental limits of electric launch propulsion are unlikely to change soon.





